The Correct Use of Air Quotes

As an editor and writer, I'm far more interested than I probably should be in unusual uses of vocabulary and punctuation. You may have noticed this as well, but when a lot of newswriters are talking about the Prez's anticipated plan to add troops in Iraq, they're putting the word surge in quotation marks. The trend is all over the place: The Washington Post, CNN, The Boston Globe, and Newsday all did it. USA Today even referred to the "so-called 'surge.'" The Financial Times makes it international. Of course the editorial pages are getting into the act, and Wes Clark uses the technique in The Washington Post as he argues for increased diplomatic efforts over increased troop strength. But et tu, George Will?

What does any of this mean? Quotation marks serve a number of functions in written language, but one that's becoming more and more popular is as the international symbol for irony. In the current context, in which Bush's expected plan faces so much opposition, journalists can't help but realize that these quote marks will make people look at surge ironically. So is this just some kind of passive-aggressive reporting in which journalists can't actually spell out the truth but can only hint at it? Or are all these sources picking up the argument by some liberal bloggers that surge should be seen as a euphemism for escalation? Maybe they're using the quotes to imply that the whole policy is nothing more than political posturing. This all seems evocative of something, the newspeople are sending some sort of message, but I'm really not sure precisely what it is. Maybe it's as simple as that they're all trying to jump on the snark train. What do you think?

One person who's not using the quotes is John McCain. He has a column in Sunday's Washington Post in which he tries to position himself as separate and distinct from whatever it is the Prez is going to suggest on Wednesday. Although the senator has himself called for another 20,000 or so troops, now that it seems that's the new administration plan, McCain's suggesting that it isn't enough: "The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces." Thanks John, but you can't duck responsibility that easily. The best name of all for our new initiative may be John Edwards's verbal slight of hand, "The McCain Doctrine." If you haven't been following closely with your own scorecard, Media Matters has a concise little rundown of the Straight Talker's zigging and zagging on a possible "surge" in Iraq.